Minutes - Planning Board - 10/04/2001~ ~~~
• APPROVED NOVEMB~R 15, 2001
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES
October 4, 2001
Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building
1777 Broadw~y, 6:00 p.m.
The following are the minutes of the October 4, 2001 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A
permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a verbatim tape recarding of the
meeting is maintained for a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043).
BOARD PRESENT:
Macon Cowles
AI Gunter, Chair
Thom Knieger
Tina Nielsen, Vice Chair
Alan O'Hashi
Marl< Ruzzin
BOARD ABSENT:
• Beth Pommer
STAFF PRESENT:
Brent Bean, Senior Planner
Bob Cole, Director of Project Review
Don Durso, Associate Planner
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Elizabeth Hanson, Planner
Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary
Peter Pollock, Plavning Director
Molly Winter, Downtown Management Commission
Marie Zuzack, Boulder Urban Ranewal Autharity
GUESTSPRESENT:
Nolan Rosall, RC Associates
David Becker, RC Associates
CALL. TO ORDER
Chair A. Gunter declared a quonim at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted.
~ s:AplanApb-items\minutes\011004min
• City oPBoulder
October 4, 2001
Planning Board Minutes
2. APPROVAL OP MINUTES
Page 2
May 3, 2001: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Plamiing Board approved
the minutes of May 3, 2001 as presented (6-0; B. Pommer was absent).
May 17, 2001: On a motion by T. ICrueger, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board approved
tl~e minutes of May 17, 2001 as presented (6-0; B. Pommer was aUsant).
July I1, 2001: A. O'Hashi suggested changing the first sentence of the first motion on page 7, to
read "A. O'Hashi made a motion that the Planning Board recommend that City Council consent to
participate in a developmenY review application for a concept plan that would include, but not be
limited to, a community process, evaluation of possible zoning changes, and kaeping in mind the
North Boulder Subcommunity Plan for the North Boulder Village Center in order to inchtde the city-
owned parcel uorth ofFourmile Canyon Creek and east ofBroadway in the application." T. Krueger
suggested changing the fourth sentence in the second motion on page 7 to read "Any nacessary
changes to the NBSP and zoning will be pursued as necessary." On a motion by T. Krueger,
seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board approved the minutes of July 11, 2001 as amended (6-0;
B. Pommer was absent).
• July 26, 2001: On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board approved
the minutes of July 26, 200] as presented {6-0; B. Pommer was absenY).
3. CITIZEN PARTICIYATION
A. Gunter indicated that the Board will not discuss the project at 902 Pearl Street. There was no
citizen participation.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
The Board had no comments on the Planning Board disposition (Running River Elementary ~nd
Meadowlark Preschool) or the Planning Department dispositions (Pearl Auto Subdivision Replat;
Boulder County Recycling and Composting Authority Subdivision Replat A and the Western
Disposal Services/Xcel Energy Site Review; and the LongUow Park Replat C).
5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
(This item was discussed at the end of the meeting.) N. Rosall presented the Downtown Alliance
five-year update on the downtown development regarding land use, employment, square footage, and
iirfrastructure (alternate modes and parking). He said that when the Downtown Alliance started, the
zoning permitted much more massive development than is cuirently permitted. He said that along
wiCh a study reviewing resictential and commercial development potential, there was an effort to
review access, transit, bicycle, and parking needs to develop a balanced system. He said that after
• the downzoniug was approved, it was decided that there would be periodic updating and monitoring
to test against some earlier assumptions.
City of Boulder
October 4, 2001
~ Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
He evaluated the projections that were made in 1997 with respect to the likely amotmt of commercial
square footage that would be built given the new zoning. He said that the result was an additional
832,000 square Peet could be built in the downtown area over a 20-year period. He said thaY the
update shows how many square feet have been built over a five-year period from 1997 and how
mauy j obs have been created in tl~e downtown area. He said that there has been less square footage
built in the downtown area over the five-year period than was projected in 1997, although more
square footage has been built on some properties than was anticipated; the projections for 2002-2006
are for 398,000 additional square feet of building as compared to 167,000 square feet projected in
1997. He said that the pace over Yhe 10-year period from 1997 will be miich higher than what was
projected; the projections for the next 10-year period will be a slowing down of the pace of growth;
and the increase in employment is projected to be 3.5 employees per 1,000 square feet on average
(higher for reYail, restauranY, and hotel uses).
He said that an analysis completed by TransPlan compared traffic flows at key intersections aud
transit use compared with what was occurring in 1995-1996. He said that TransPlan found that while
traffic in the 28th Street/Arapahoe corridar increased by 16 percent over the five-year period, the
downtown traffic increased only about one percent; the peak hour traffic increased by seven percent,
although the intersection ofBroadway and Canyon increased by 16 percent. He said that the ridership
on the local buses increased by 87 percent over that timeframe, and Yhere is an increase in bicycling
and walking into the downtown. He said that a parking demand need over a 20-year period,
~ developed by TransPlan, shows a parking deficit. He noted that the other part of the economic
monitoring, which inchides retail salcs tax, retail and overall vacancies, shows thaY what was a
gradual increase in retail sales tax is flattening out just as is occurring with retail and overall
vacancies. He said that these figures show that the downtown area is healthier than it would have
been had downzoning not occurred.
A. Gunter said that at its meeting on November 15 the Board will discuss its ideas on what goals
and objectives staFf should be pursuing. He said that staff can then communicate this information
Co City Council during their goals retreat. T. Nielsen suggesYed that Board members might be
interested in attending the all-staff training sessions, specifically Development 101 presented by
local developers. M. Ruzzin asked staff to distribute project plans to the Wl~ittier Neighborhood
Association when those proj ects affect them. He suggested that staff find ways to ensure efficiency
in applicant presentations.
A. Gunter mentioned that a workshop on Leadership through Energy and L,nvironmental Design
(LEED) conducted by a commercial LEED expert will be held on October 22. He pointed out that
on October 17 the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) will review the design of the
reconstruction of the Broadw~ty bridge. A. O'FIashi asked about the status of the occupancy
guidelines for the theater conversions. P. Pollock said that the city is discussing the issue with the
Fox theater regarding the new building codes that apply to theater conversions to nonseating
arrangements.
.
s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes\01 I OOamiii
~ify of ~3r~ult3er
f}ct~ber ~S, 2001
Ptann'tri~ Board IvTinutes
Pa~e 4
~YI. Cr~rales d&ked abauf the Gapital Improveme~it Prn~;ram {CIF) recon~mendatioti Yo C~ity Catmcil
re~arcling the adequaGy ~f tl~e capital clevelopin~nt fLUid to pay fc~r plant investment and facilities
req~Eir~d by netiv grawth, P. ~'nllock saici tha# he will ~rc,vide aopiES af the mei~aorriridun~. M. Cowies
said ihat he and ~. C)'Ii~siti at~t~nded ~n exoell~nt sessiots at the An7eriCati I'lnnrsin~ Assnciatian
(AP~A} coi~f~rence on facilitating effiuient rnee~ing~ ftnd reco~nmerided Chat th~ t3oard and other
u<7anrryissions gU through h•ainlzY~ a~ith flte fac'tlitat~~r. He also su~,~ested th~t ~e and Mr. C3'~Iash~
mak~ a briefpr~senC~tion ra~ardia~ tlus session ~t Che Novemb~r~ 15 ~neatii~g. 3~i a di~cl~ssiUn ~bc~ut
dev~Joputg standard c~nditions, ll. Gehx offered to discuss with the I3~ard the basis for standaed
cqnditions, how staff cr~ft5 such ec~nditioi~s, and tlre use ~f'th~ these ennditiana i~i pxoject a~~resvals,
p, Follaek said Yhat sfiafF ~,sk~d fhe C'ounty Garnm~ssianers a}~sut thair Intant when tliey appz•or~ed
~ diftzrant clesi~nafior~ i'or the axie-aere site ~t Jay and 47th ~3ts'eet. He sair3 t1?af ti~e {~rmtnissioiaer~
haci not antici~~at~d going back ti~rraugh Yhe he~t'in~ proc~ss. T3e said tbaY this tx~ass~ge was t~ken to
City C~un~S 1> and they, in fa~t, endcst~sed thaf pracess and adcipted th~ Gilasz~~s, ~~e said ihat thd major
ttpdate to the Bniilder Vall~y Comprehensive Plan (HVC'~) has been complated, an~ ~ sumKn<~ry of
all tha chan~;~s wiil be diatril~iaC~d be~'c~xe th~ k3VC1~ is final3y adopfed. I~e haid thaf he wrll hring
foiKr,~ard the BVCP action plan fordiscassian ar~Naveitib~r 15. FIe a~ted thatthejoint'I'r~1s~c~rt,~Cinn
Advisory ~o~rd ('TAB)If'lannin~ I3~i~rr3 zneeting is schsduled for T~T~r~ember 27 and sugges~d that
a re~reser~t~tive fi•am the Plannin~; EU~d (A, Guuter vcrl~urteet•ed te, }~~ th~ rapres~tativ~) disouss
the a~;enc~d with_ a mer~tser frc~sn T~~. F~~ s~id that a first m~.eting of tCre jc~bs to populatian batance
~ tasl~ 4ore~ widi t~e heid in Octobar.
He encoutagett ~3oz~rd nletnbers to meat wiYh T3nn(cier Urts~7n l~enewal Autharity (BIIRA~y
rc;~aresez~tatives re~arciin~ ~;z'assroads. He saicl that a contract was awarded far a btight study fvr
~ro~aroads, and a~:quest far f~u~lifi~aCians c~r ~ro~oszls will be ~rslicitec~ in Janu~ry. He s~id that
MacQi•ich is develc~ping t.heir own pc~Gantial prc~posal for red~v~lnpn~ent.
F[~ noYed thaC the ~ity inkends tc,l7ring nearby propez~ty ~4vnecs tc~~ether to dlss;uss the davelopment
fi~r the l~torth k~nuldar Village C~nt~r, ancl tha cityis outiinin~ its own plan for t(~e ~djaeent pubiialy-
owtaed pa~~cel, sucli as acee,5s, aite far a libr<iry, flooc! impravements, and infrzt~tructure. He s~id th~#
ti~e UniversiEy of ~oloraclo ~CLI~ will s~lact a<iev~lap~;r to wcsrk nn fihe Williams Villag~
develo~inent. He said that ~taff is in the prpcess of commenting on C".t7's analysis of tltu South
C~~npus site, H~ expixiti~d tlzat a suitabl~ cnndiclafe wa~ ~~vt fc}und for t1~c; Comtnunityl7evelapment
C~oc~rdin~tar positia~~, but ~art of th~ maney is l~eii~g use~i to hire N~fl ti~lthnuser to wark as a
pmj~ct n3~tiager o1y som~ of tl~e covnnunity developnl~ilt issue.~, f~e s~id that the remaindar af Y1ie
funds are availat~la ~a~• staff to hiiz c~nsultants to ~r`oeid~ urhan design assist~ance. l3e said that on
hrovember 7 th~ra will be a P3anning I~€;~ar~ment 5~Jth ~ra~ive~~sary c:alebrokion wlucl~ will inchid~
an ~:xllibit called "Planning'f'hrough the l~~eades " a rcunion of past planning c~epnrnnent diractors
re~nir3iscin~; or~ 50 years ~f~oulde~rplstxning, aitd apan~;t an Fr~dei~ickI.a~r Olmst~d, Tr. ~u~dnis rvl~
in cityplanning.
~
City of Boulder
• October 4, 2001
Planning Board Minutes
6. CONSENT ITEM
Page 5
A. Public hearing and consideration of matters related to Chapter 9-6, "Residential
Growth Management System," B.R.C. 1981, for time extension for banked
quarterly allocations awarded to Villa Del Prado (Mohawk and Baseline). This
liearing will be held pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1-3, "Quasi-Judicial
Hearings," B.R.C. 198I.
Public Participation: There was no public participafion.
Return to the $oard:
A. Gunter asked about the estiinate of the actual number of peimits that will be used this year and
how it compares with last year. B. Bean said that last year there were about 200 quarterly allocations
used; however, this year the allocations are distributed differently and more exempt and excess
allocations have beeu given than in past years. He said only about six allocations were given through
the quarterly system this year, 1nd the remainder will be exempt or excess. He explained that only
about 2S percent of the unused allocations are carried over to the next year. T. Krueger asked about
the Yhree unapproved lots in Villa del Prado that wera created in the 1980s outside the subdivision
process. B. Bean said that staff was Lmaware that the lots were separated Uecause notiFication
. processes were not in place with the county Assessor's Office at that time which documented
creation of the illegal lots. He said that Chis situation is ]ess likely to occur today with new tracking
systems used by the county Recorder.
MOTION: The Planning Board uuanimo~isly approved by acclamation a twelve-month time
extension for the 91 banked allocations for Villa Del Prado to July 1, 2001.
7. ACTION ITEMS
A. Continuation of public hearing and consider~tion of Land Use Review
#LUR2001-00007 fm• a Site Review Amendment to change the plans for an
approved Phase 2 two-story building at 1744 30th Street,,just east oftl~e existing
CompUSA store at 1740 30th Street. The proposed Phase 2 plans show a new
three-story, 33,900 square foot, 45 foot tall retail and office building.
A. Gunter said that, although he was not present fot the original hearing on this item, he had
reviewed all the materials and listened to the tape from that hearing so that he could participate at
this meeting. L. Hanson said that tha application is an amendment to a 1998 site review plan for
CompUSA and a Phasa II building that was approved at the east edge of the property. She explained
that the 1998 plan showed a 20,000 square foot retail and office building for the Phase II building,
and the applicant proposes to change the plans Yo a three-story, 45-foot tall retail and office Uuilding.
Shc said Yhat at the hearing on July 19, 2001 the Planning Board raised concerns about tha
.
s:lplanlpb-itemslmiuntes\O] ] 004min
City oPBoulder page 6
Qctober 4, 2001
~ Planning Board Minutes on Che site, pedestrian coilnecti°ns, and the
arking and landscaping licant to consider some
relationship of the buildin~, P
of the landscape p1an; the Board contimted the item to allow the app
quality
changes to the plans. is moved five feet e~st and
She listed some of the changes that the applica~lt has made (the buildiilg
the east edge of the p1opertY Wlll be moved more intern ed dn~
a]andscape str'tp proposed along have Ueen enlarged; a new landscap
site; the landacaPe islands to the west of the building ~~~n has a revised number and type of
the new landscap p
plaza is added to tha soutt~west carner; ig Io osed at the southwest eomer of the building; an
arking spaces has been redueed by two)• Sha said that staff thinks that t e
plant species shown; a new building entry p p Yovides more significant and effective
the number of off-streeti P roved cansiderably and p lan and feels that this
landscape plan has been ~mP A staff has revie~ued tl~a p ional Center
1andscaping on the site. She said that the BUR ~allbecause it serves to strengthen
sthe roposalingreatercompliancewithboththe~ouIderValtayRe~
revisedplanbring p
~BV jtc) guidelines andthe Crossroads East Sunrise Center area p o~tion Demand
edestrian connection betw ~ n 33rd Street and 30th Street. Sl~e ~aled ~at at Che 3uly Q~''ng~
Yhe p o a motion made by he Board regardvig aTransp
there waa a frlendly amendment
Management plan so staff has included a similar condition of appxo
licant modified the landscapa plan to address concerns o£ the Board and
g, Cole added that the app ~ m~de were changes that staff could enthusiastioally
ieviousstaffine~norandum, a t nd
~ staf£ He said that staff felt thaY the chang ~n ~n ~e site for more visual imP
support as meeYingthe intant ofwliathad bean callad out in the p' colors, forms, and
that the applicants changed the chaxacter of the landsca ki g lot (size, quantity>
for a more defined pedestrian carridor through the p
spacicig of the trees).
resented some pictures thaof heproject someof
I,uu Della Cava, Applicant, 24~g 30tk Street, p a~icular to the second
rovements made to the plan. He gava an abbreviated history
lanned, in P
detail of the imp
ment factors that affected how the site was p
the site redevelop 2 in 1948 and the mo~ P a o ed resta ~t
building; the conceptual Uuilding desigti for Building resent ~lan
to osed Yoday; the ~oor area ratio (FAK1 for the site and for Huilding P p
designp' p and differences between the last plan and the p
use on the third floor of the building; changes, recycled huilaing materials that were used in tha
' (prasence onto 30th Street, landscaping ~l~ ~p~alY for the cons~~e t~TQ e t~herelhe learned
first building and the proposed use of recy
Cowtes disclosed an ax-p11~~ contact with Mr. Della Cava regarding P~
hase of this project was suUinitted, one of the thusgs that was rec{aired in thz
thaf when the first p of two kiosks in the parking area.
pxoject was the building
Public PArticipation: There was no puUlic participation.
~ S.~p~an~pb-~~ems~ninutes\O11004mii~
City of Boulder
~ October 4, 2001
Planning Board Minntes
Return to the Bo~rd:
Paga 7
The Board and staff discussed the definition of significant shift away from single occupant vehicle
iise to alternate inodes that wo~ild be expected through the TDM program in general and for this site;
whether an approved applicaYion is required to comply with new landscaping regulations and TDM
straYegies when construction act~ially begins; parking lot standards fhat will provide the conuection
between 30th and 33rd Streets (a design that does noC have parking on both sides of a main street thaY
carries Yraffic in and out of the parking area); Yhe FAR calculations for the entire site; BURA staff
review and approval of the proposal; the key issues (45-foof building height, need for a presence of
an attractive streetscape with incorporation of design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale,
compatibility of the building design with the existing character of the surrounding area, provision
of a significant amount of plant material sized in excess of the city's landscaping requirements, and
provision of site design techniques that enhance the c~uality ofthe proj ect}; assuring that the prasence
along 33rd Street is not unfriendly; making sure that shade is provided for the pedestrian features;
a desire that the architectural detai 1(concrate bollards) on the CompUSA buildingwill not be cattied
over to Building 2; Yhe potential oF a 45-foot tall building to cause ice in the parking lot for
businesses to the north of the building; compaCibility with the new changes to the Boulder Valtey
Comprehensive Plan regarding the additional building height and square footage; the need to plan
this site in conjunction with adjaeent sites in order to provide abicycle and pedestrian corridor; and
i the profitability for a business to have extensive Iandscaping on the site.
MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by M. Cowles, the Planning Board approved (6-
0; B. Pommer was absent) Land Use Review #LUR2001-0007, incorporating the staffinemoranduin
dated October 4, 2001 (preparafion date September 20, 2001) and the attached site Review Criteria
Checklist as findings of fact, using the recommended conditions of approval in Attaclunent A.
T. Nielsen offered a friendly amendment to change the first plu•ase in Condition 3 to read "Prior to
application for a bui2ding permit, the Applicant shalI, subject to the review and approval af the
Director of Public Warks:" A. O'I3ashi and M. Cowles accepted the friendly amendment.
T. Krueger offered a friendly amendment to change Condition 3.c to read "Submit and implement
a transportation demand managemeni plan that demonsCrates a significant shift away from single
occupant vehicle use to alternate modes by on-site employees through the use of practical and
beneficia] transportation demand management techniques." A. O'I-Iashi and M. Cowles accepted
the friendly amendment.
~
s:Aplan\pb-itemstininntes\O ll 004min
City of Boulder
• OctoUer 4, 2001
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
B. i) Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation Yo City Coancil
on an ordinance to amend the conditional height provisions for the RBl-
E and RBl-X zoning districts set forth in section 9-3.2-4, B.R.C., 1981,
and setting forth details in relation thereto.
ii) Discussion concerning other recommend~tions from the Downtown
zoning anal}~sis.
P. Pollock reminded the Board that in July it unanimously recommended the elimination of the
provision that allows for a third story of up to 45 feet on coiner sites on the RB1-E and RB1-X
zoning districts downtown. He said that during the 120-day period a conversation with the
community wouldbe initiated concerniug the appropriateness ofthatprovision. He said that an urban
design analysis was completed to show theoreticallywhere such building could take place (existence
of already-approved, existing, or historieally existing three-story buildings), opinions of community
groups were gathered, and communitymeetings were held about the third-storyprovision and a more
general discussion about the appropriateness ofthird floors along Pearl Street from 9th Street to 18Yh
Street. He said that N. Rosall will give a presentation later in the meeting about the monitoring
report, the status oPconstntction downtown, and the new projections of growth.
He said thaY Yhe discussion about the conditional height provision is not a hearing about the West
• End Tavern or the development at 9th and Pearl but rather a code provision that allows more
generally a third floor up to 45 feet for a particular building. He noted that tha Landmarks
Preservation Advisory Board approved the staff recommendation and a letter from the Downtown
Management Commission to retain the conditional height provision as stated currently in the code.
He outlined the four prevalent viewpoints (no change in the code provision, allowing [he provision
in lower intensity zoning districts, allowing the provision along the Walnut/Canyon corridor but not
allowing it in the historic area, especially along Pearl Street, and requiring a site review process to
allow more control over the quality ofbuilding design}. He said that staffltsed these four viewpoints
to develop the policy options for the conditional height provisions in the RB1 zones; 1) make no
change to the current code; 2) eliminate the conditional height provision and allow additional height
at corners tl~rough the site review process, 3) limit the area where the conditional height provision
applies with five different scenarios, and 4) restrict the provision to "architectural elements." He
presented a map that showed where realistically the building heigltt provision could be enacted.
He said that the staff recommendation took in elements of both concerns about restricting the area
to lower intensity areas and staying off the Pearl Street corridor. He said that staff's recommendation
is to allow such additions only in RBI-X zones, to require that the site is surrounded by the RB1-X
or P-E zones, and that the property is not in the histaric district. He said that there was a discussion
about the FAR bonuses for above-grade parking and residential uses along Pearl Street. He said that
staPf concluded that more analysis is needed before a specific recommendation is made.
.
s:Aplan\pb-itemsUninutes\011004nun
City of Boulder
~ October 4, 2001
Pl~nning Board Minutes
Pnblic ParticipaYion:
Page 9
Crystal Gray, Whittier Neighborhood Association, Downtown Alliance,1709 Spruce Street:
She recommended that a site review Ue required on alI corner lots. She said that the Downtown
Desigi AdvisoryBoard also made this recommendation. She said that the DownCown Alliance talked
about architectural features on the corners and somehow it changed into this current code provision.
She said that there is a desire to have residential uses downtown where it is appropriate. She said that
the conditional use review doas not address the appropriate architecteire. She outlined urban myths
(it is not about the West End Tavern but about 72 corners in the downtown, that the site review is
cun~bersome, that the increase far corner lots was a tradeoFf for rezoning downtown, and that the
Maxim proj ect could have had their proj ect if they had not wanted to go greater than 50 x 70 feet).
Terese Spears, 13th and Pearl: She recommended a change in the height provisions because all
downYown properties should go through a site review because of safety, in particular along the Pearl
Streat Mall. She suggested that larger buildings on the south side which block the sun and create ice
should not be allowed. She said that a site review would consider ambience and charm of the
downtown district.
Michelle Goren, 84419th Street: She said that she is concerned about all the corner properties, and
• Boulder will be known not for what it Uuilds but for what it destroys. She said that it is important
not to destroy the very reason why people come to downtown Boulder (intimate downtown pockets,
the feeling of open space, the Flatiron views). She recommended that the conditional height
provision be eliminated and that additional height on corners be reviewed through the site review
process. She said that instead of asking ifthe project is economically feasible, we should ask whether
we can afford to destroy Boulder's skyline by encouraging more mass and height on the downtown
corner lots.
Susan Wilson, 104 3rd Avenue, Niwot: She supported requiring a site review far the conditional
heigl~t. She noted how attractive the building at 17th and Pearl is with its recessed third floor which
the conditional height review does not encourage. She said that by allowing more neighborhood
input to aFfect the size and scale of buildings downtown and architectL~ral character of the building
is a good idea.
Heidi Fletemeyar, Applicant Attorney, Johnson, Repucci & Berg,1401 Walnut Street: She said
that her client who owns the 902 Pearl Street property opposes the proposed elimination of the
conditional height provision and that the proposad change has been purposely timed to fareclose the
by-right development of this property and to confuse the site review application. She said that
because oP the city's attempts to downzone the property and dictate development on that corner
through the proposed ordinance change, the focus of each of the public meetings has hirned to a
critiqeie o f the pending 902 Pearl siYe review application. She said tlaat tttat application is not properly
~
s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\011004min
City of Bo~llder
~ October 4, 2001
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
before the public at this time for hearing and consideration. She said that the proposed change is
arbitrary and intentionally discriminates against this property by downzoning without a rational aiid
legitimate zoning purpose as required by law. She asked the Board to consider making no change
to the cttrrent coda.
Gwen Dooley, 730 Spruce: She spoke on behalf of herself and Cindy Carlisle. She supported
eliminating the condiYional height provision and allowing addiYional height at corners through the
site review process. She also supported appointing a task farce to review other recommendations to
the downtown zoning analysis which should be inclusive. She agreed with the conclusions from the
earlier powntown Alliance that the buildings on the south side of Pearl Street be kept lower to allow
the sun to hit the mall during the wintertime, to allow pedestrians on the mall to view the mountains,
and that the ends ofthe mall should step down to be compatible with the neighborhoods at both ends.
She read parts of the 55-foot height limitation ordinance because of the intent it shows and why a
site review should be required for heights over 35 feet or buildings over two stories.
John Spitzer, Chair of the Downtown Design Advisory Board, 2323 20th Street: He said that
DDAB reviewed this issue and unanimously approved eliminating the conditional height provision
and allowing additional height at corners through the site review process. He commented on the
statement that the provision has never been used so far but that it could be used if a developer
• applied though a site review but was turned down. He said that by retaining this provision an
inappropriate building could be constructed. He said that if the Floor Area Ratio is not changed, it
will likely lead to taller buildings on the east and west ends o£the mall. He suggested that if the FAR
bonus is not changed that the residences have a square foot Iimitation, such as 600 square feet, to
allow people who work downtown to live in these residences and to consider three-stoiy buildings
no taller than 35 feet and two-story buildings no taller than 28 feet.
Maryl Swick, 628 Pleasant Street: She supported Option 2 which eliminates the conditional height
provision and allows additional height on corners through a site review process. She said that by
encouraging buildings higher than 35 feet or even two stories in the downtown area, especially on
Pearl StreeY, is a mistake. She said that otherwise we will lose whaY is unique about Boulder {the
character and feel of our community which makes it a desirable place to live, our connection with
the nature that surrounds Boulder, specifically the mountain views which greatly enhance the quality
of life, and the connection with the community through locally owned and operated businesses). She
said that the approval of larger buildings will attraet larger corporations and businesses to occupy
these buildings thus eroding the small-town community atmosphere.
Rick Stein, 3122 9th Street: He said that he favors the site review requirement because the
downtown commercial district and the residential area need to stay in balance in order to stay
healthy. He said that requiring a site review will ensure this balance, especially For buildings that are
proposed to be different than the rest of the buildings in the are~t.
~
s:Aplan\pb-items~niuates\011004min
City c~f I3ot~lcles'
Octob~~ 4, 2~~1
Planning Baartl Mtmites
~'~ge 11
lyolan Rasait, Downtawra iYlae~s~~eme~st Commissit~n {DMC}, 61C, 14tH Street: He said that the
I7MC su~5~~orteci hy a 3 to 2 vote nat Cc> change the prnvisiQn be~;aasa nf tha fopowing rsasans: 1)
they felt that the majority of prc~periy owners in the dorvntawn a~•ea siappot~ted this opt.ion; 2} fhey
thoughC tliaf~ it was important ti~at xesidentiat uses be encctnra~eci in the downtr~wu area, and
requiring a site review ~night tiiseourage sc~rne prop~rty awner~ from gaing thrnugh t1~e procass anc3,
as a rc^suit, discaurag~ r~sidentiat uses, and 3} thsy were nat cef~ain EI~At th~ reeommendatiran from
~lanning stafi covered all the i~sues that needeci tr~ be addresaed, and unCi1 th~re was a more
e~amprehen5ive set af char3gea to l~E evaluated, there should hena o2~attge. Hementianed some af the
mi5sin~ i~sues; altowing ileigllts +~f 38 feet rather f}~an ;35 faet i~vhich waulci re~flect the lust~i~ic
charact~r in the area, ancattragiug mixed usE~ and rasidential uses, ancl izt~orporating tha urban
d~sign ~,uidelines inta the overall review, IIe said that some of Che reasnns tiie two meinbers vated
agaanat the `ho change'" o~kion ~vere Et~~t the dawntown area. is ~ very spccial place anci a site review
is importa~rt ta addrese the issu~,~ ofmass, scale, and desigti.
Return to the ~oard:
M. Etuzzin £avarEd the staff reco~nmentlation bec.au~e the land use cads and regulzttions allow hi$h-
quality praj~ets to uapp~n by right, antl we should not bE Eao restrictive }~y requieing a sita review.
Fie said fhat th~re ia oversigkit in thase projeots bac~use the DL~AB revicws ci~sign issuas. A.
t7'~3~slii also agreed with the sCaff reCommenc~atiqn in that it CakES it~t~ ~ecnunt kh~ b~e~ds of the
~ propez~t~ owners as expr~ssed by the memt~era of tl~~ I~MC.~. A. Guntee said thaC under conditianat
review the DI7AB raeonmlenciations are not rnandatory but under sita review the Haard cc~ngiclers
tl?osa racomme~~dations as thau~h ttiey wera mandatory. T1~ aTsa favorcd ~ site r~vi~w so thaf tl~e
reconimsndati~ns l~y DZ}AEi can be enforCed wherc apprc~~riate, to ha4°e tlie ztbility to 14ok at ih~
buiidir3gs suaroWnding fhe pt-njeGt to aee if it fits correctly in context, an~i to ~;et bette~~ d~signecl
prujeuts. M. Cnwies favc~reci a site reviev~ t~ ansure that buiidings of a c~rt~in height az~: built in
ap~ropriate piace~. Ha saad that to have resiciential ~r~d retail in the downtown ~r~a is a legiCimate
planning c~bjective. FI~ aiso suggastsd th~t limitations on square footage fbr residential imits along
Pearl Street 6~ itnposed aud tYzat the inclusionary zaning requirement fo;• ~ffardable housing be an
sit~ rather than a easl~,in~Iieu payment ar off sita Guii~liligs. T. IKrpe~;cr faeored raquiring a site
r~view to prot~ct tha a~alsitive dpwntorvn ~nvironment, T. ltiiplsan fa~rored Che si~e review
r~quirement bacaus~ s~f a disac~mf~i~t wifh tha eonditio~ial review. Sha sai~i that ~ecaase we do pot
have ~ooci iirbafi dasign gaidelines and we do nat hnve a way to anforce tbem, having a ccrmmunity
dia]c1~ue is poaitiee ana ean lead to ~ beifer profluct.
MQTIOIY: On a Tn+atzon by T. Nielsen, secanded by T. Kruager, t~le Platit~in$ Roard racammended
(6-4; I~. Pommer was ahse~it} that City Gc~une'rl eliminate fi~e canditionul6eight provision~ for the
k~l-E and RBi-R 7rn~in~ clisttict~s anrl a3~ow adclitional h~ight at com~rs through the sit~ r~viea~
process a5 notati in tlie ataffmemcrrarithiin ci~ted Ootober 4, 24Q1 {pre~~ration date Septe~ll~er 2$,
2Qt~1}; a~~d, fiir~lier, to ~mei~d tlie title of the ord'[nance to read "An f7rdinance Etiminati~ig the
C'ondi~ional Height Provibions for tYie RI31-~ ~nd R131-~' Zonin~ Distriots Set F'arth in Section 9-
~
fi,lp(ai7\pb-itcros\nilauxes\GI IQ04mtn
City of Boulder
October 4, 2001
~ Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
3.2-4, B.R.C., 1981, and Setting Forth Details in Relation Thereto" and to delete (c) (1) through (5)
under Section 9-3.2-4 (b) (2).
C. Public hearing and conaideration of Site Review #LURZ001-OOOa9, to construct
~ 600 square foot addition to an existing single family house at 1320 Meadow
Avenue. The existing liouse was built in 1973 to a height of 31 feet. The second
floor of the addition would match the exieting heigl~t (31 feet). This property is
zoned ER-E (Estate Residential Established).
The applicants are requesting vested rights pursuant to Section 9-4-12 "Vested
Rights," B,R.C. 1981.
D. Durso said that the lot is a nonconforming lot because the size is I O,OOd square feet where the
minimuin lot area in that zone is 15,000 square Feet. He said that because of the nonconFormance a
site review is required to approve a height above 28.3 feet aven though the house is 31 feet tall. The
applicants are proposing to raise the roof on the east side of the house to match the existing height
of the roof on the west sida of the house. He said that the applicants are also requesting vested rights
which require a public hearing. He said that staff recommends approval of the site review because
the height, mass, and scale is compaYible with the existing character of the area, the proposed height
is no taller than the existing height of the west side of the roof, the addition will not negatively affect
• the views of the neighbors, and the streetscape of the housa will be improved by providing an entry
at the upper level of the house.
Deborah Kratovil, Applicant, said that the addition is modest and does uot extend the footprint of
the house, She said that the addition will make the house more liveable.
Public Participation: There was no public participation
Return to the Board:
The Board and staff discussed the reasoning behind the change in the rule limiting the height of such
structures to make ttiem more proportional to The size of the lot.
MOTION: On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by T. Krueger, the Pianning Board approved (6-0;
B. Pommer was absent} Site Review Amendment #LUR2001-00049 incorparating the staff
memorandum dated October 4, 2001 (preparation date September 20, 2001) and the attached Site
Review CriYeria Checklist as findings oF fact and using the attached recommended condition of
approval.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjouined the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
•
s:Aplan\pb-items\minntes\011004min